On November 6th, 2024, former president Donald Trump was elected into office for the second time. After countless speeches, tweets, and rallies his campaign has won him not only a devoted following but two presidential elections, running against Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris respectively. Boasting a bold personality and strong, conservative opinions, he became a rallying point for the republican politicians that once rejected him and is set to give the GOP not just the white house, but a red Senate and House of Representatives as well.
While there are numerous factors that might contribute to Trump’s success, his bravado and skill as an entertainer stand out, with every rally being a celebration of the values of his platform and his resolve in the face of opposition. But there is one glaring issue that has been trailing the Trump party train: the music isn’t his.
Over the last ten years of Trump’s rise to political stardom he has used music as a key component of his campaign, not only by bringing on musical guests but through the ongoing and unapologetic misuse of copyrighted music, making an enemy of a number of big name artists. From R.E.M., famed for their hit “It’s the End of the World as We Know It”, in 2015 to pop icon Beyoncé in 2024, musical talents with no shortage of lawyers have demanded that Trump not use their music and their pleas appear to be falling on deaf ears. With the exception of a select few with the money to support a lawsuit against Trump, such as the temporary injunction on Trump by the U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash in a case in Atlanta involving his misuse of the late Isaac Hayes’ “Hold on I’m Coming”, the Trump campaign has been able to completely ignore any and all consequences of music infringement due to their legal strength.
This puts Trump in a unique position among the improbably large category of copyright infringing politicians in how often and how efficiently he can get away with using legally defended music without consent. Since his campaign is as well funded as it is, Trump is better prepared for the expenses of a high-profile fair use lawsuit than most high-profile artists are willing to commit. While he can afford to lose any one case, the costs of such a case are enough to deter the majority of the dissenting artists, allowing him to functionally violate copyright law as many times as he likes.
But then why is defending music from the president elect so costly? Don’t these artists have the right to control how their art is used? Attorney Jacqueline Charlesworth supports this notion, identifying Trump’s chorus of musical dissent as a sign of a larger problem. Charlesworth argued that “a songwriter of an artist should have the ability and right to – as they do under copyright law – control the use of their work, especially in a political context.”
If this were the case then why do artists have so little control? When looking at the opposite extreme the reason becomes clear. Lee Greenwood, known for his song “God Bless the U.S.A.”, is a proud supporter of Trump’s campaign, but he started his association with Trump as one of his victims. “Basically, he chose the song to represent his campaign and what he felt was best for the country,” Greenwood recalls, “I was proud to be a part of it.” With Greenwood’s perspective Trump’s use of his music without his consent was simply free advertising, putting his song in front of the American people on a scale he could never have hoped to achieve on his own.
Trump walks the fine line between remorseless criminality and selfless philanthropy, only falling on one side or the other on the basis of artists’ consent. And strangely enough, these musicians have found a method to have it both ways: publicly decrying Trump’s use of their music and disassociating from his campaign base while neglecting to take legal action and permitting the publicity to continue. Though together they could make a large enough dent to inhibit his campaign, the same political skill and force of personality that lends Trump his following means that these artists stand too much to gain to mount a resistance, letting art slowly but surely leave their control and become another step in his rise to power.
Hi Alex!
Your take on Trump’s use of music in his campaigns over the years was really interesting and is such a telling example of his entire political platform. I’m not surprised that the Trump campaign has enough money to fund the legal consequences of him using certain songs, and it’s especially compelling to see how the perception of his actions changes depending on the artists’ political leanings. I’m remembering Celine Dion’s reaction when Trump used one of her songs at a rally during his most recent campaign, taking to social media to express her outrage rather than fighting a legal battle. Many, including myself, found this public takedown by Dion humorous, but after reading your article I see that it highlights a larger issue. Because of the massive financial backing of Trump’s campaign, it can be daunting for artists to try and reclaim their music from misuse by a man they do not support.
Wow. It makes sense that Trump has plenty of money and resources to basically ignore copyright cases versus musical artists, but the scale of it is insane. I also like the note about Lee Greenwood. Sometimes copyright can be waived by the artist themselves simply because they like the use of it outside of it’s contexts. It’s incredibly complex the ways copyright law works and how easy it is to manipulate with the correct resources and financial backing. It ultimately burns down to the issue that copyright, on a general basis, usually only impacts the general population and smaller artists without money to burn. Richer Americans like Trump and other millionaires really don’t have to worry about copyright law when they can just pay off whatever legal dispute involved with the restriction. It just reminds us that everything is money in the United States. Thanks for the insightful article about this contemporary topic.
First of all, I absolutely love your topic and how you connected Trump’s viral “YMCA dance” to art and crime. You describing the reason for Trump’s success being due to his character and personality that is just unlike anyone else is quite a good point and tied right into your topic. I never really thought about Trump using music, not just with the YMCA dance, but overall as a component to his presidential campaign. The lawsuit surrounding his copywriting will theoretically be quite expensive, but with someone holding as much power as him I doubt he will be charged for most of these charges and if he is he will most likely use “hush money” to sweep these so-called mistakes under the rug. Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed reading your article and although I believe he should be charged for copyright on a variety of accounts, I personally do not believe Donald Trump will end up in a courtroom for this anytime soon.
This article brought to light an aspect of Trump’s campaign that I had never even considered a factor before. I had no idea that Trump would straight-up use music without gaining the right to them. That is an insanely unique position to be in that he has the funds to use music with the artists’ permission because worst case, he can afford to lose money to a lawsuit and still use the music that he wants. I wonder if there is an active effort by politicians or other sources to hide information like this from the public to keep Trump’s image clean. That was also an interesting perspective that artists can also benefit from Trump illegally using their music by seeing it as a free promotion. The article is well written, informative, and sticks to the facts.
I thought that this was a very interesting article that brings up several interesting points such as the relationship between money and the law. As you mentioned, due to the high funding of the Trump campaign and Trump’s individual wealth, he has the ability to break certain laws on the use of music for his campaign without having to worry much about the consequences. I think this is particularly interesting because it gives a clear advantage to a campaign with more money. The use of music as a representation of something like the MAGA movement etc. can be a powerful tool to unite people and create collective emotion. With this powerful tool, it seems like the one with the most money and who is willing to face lawsuits if necessary are given access to a broader range of options for music, improving their ability to connect to their audience and build popularity. Furthermore, especially when it comes to politics, given the frequent involvement of artists and celebrities in endorsing or condemning presidential candidates in the US, the use of a song could easily be misconstrued by listeners as an endorsement by that musician for the political movement or candidate at hand. All of this highlights the dangers linked to the usage of music in politics.
I think your article does a great job of showing how Trump has been able to use music as part of his campaigns while avoiding consequences, but it also made me think about the bigger picture of what this means for artists and their work. You mentioned how artists sometimes benefit from the exposure even if they disagree with his politics, and I believe that is a weird gray area. I wonder if this creates a situation where the artists are almost forced to stay quiet because they don’t want to lose the attention, even if it’s attention they didn’t ask for. It also makes me think about how copyright law itself might not be strong enough to protect art from being misused in this way, especially when it’s tied to something as public and impactful as politics. I’m curious to see if this could lead to changes in how copyright works or if artists are going to just be stuck playing along because of how hard it is for them to fight back.